asked the Minister for Education when he intends to pay two-thirds of the cost of the audio-visual equipment which was purchased by schools with the sanction of his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - School Audio-Visual Equipment.
14.
The funds made available for this scheme in the current financial year have been exhausted. If funds are made available for this scheme in 1976, priority consideration will be given to those cases to which the Deputy refers.
Is the Minister aware that many schools made large financial commitments for the provision of audio-visual equipment with sanction from the Department of Education and they now find themselves without any aid from the Department?
There are some such.
In the absence of a solid promise now that the money will be available next year, would the Minister not regard this as a grave breach of trust on the part of the Department?
I should like to explain to the Deputy that the experience in previous years has been that a number of schools who applied for approval to purchase equipment did not use that approval given either in the year of application or subsequently, or did not purchase to the full amount of the approval. For the past few years this factor has been taken into consideration and it has been the practice to give approvals to some small extent for more than the total sum provided for grants to avoid the sort of criticism which was made a few years ago about unspent money provided for such items as school books and audio-visual aids.
Would the Minister like to state in cash terms the amount of money spent by the schools for which they are awaiting two-thirds of a grant?
It is about one-quarter of the allocation.
It sounds as if the Minister is fiddling the Estimate.
Does the Deputy sympathise with my intention to use the money?
The Minister seems to have gone too far.
You win some and you lose some.
The Minister is losing this one.
Is the Deputy against giving money for audio-visual equipment?
I am against fiddling the figure in the Estimate when they did not think they would spend that much, and then found they needed a great deal more than they provided for.
I am satisfied that they will be paid.
Is the Minister satisfied he is doing the right thing? He should have paid on the nail because these people are in debt.
(Interruptions.)
Am I to take it that the Minister will pay this year's debt next year and that will not interfere with next year's allocation for the purchase of audio-visual equipment?
There will not be any question of that happening.